J. Fuglestvedt, M. Lund, Steffen Kallbekken, B. Samset, David S. Lee
The effects of aviation on climate pose unique policy challenges. A large fraction of the CO2 emissions (65%) is international and not (explicitly) included in the Paris Agreement. The interpretation of Article 4.1 on achieving a “balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” is ambiguous in the context of aviation because of the substantial non‐CO2 effects associated with the sector. For the achievement of the temperature goal in Article 2, both CO2 and non‐CO2 effects are important. The non‐CO2 effects contribute 66% of the sectoral total climate effect (in terms of Effective Radiative Forcing; ERF) at present, with significant uncertainties. The largest of these non‐CO2 effects, contrail‐cirrus and the net‐effect of NOx, are not caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions, representing another ambiguity as to whether they should be included in the balance concept. We discuss the role of aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement, and present illustrative calculations of a hypothetical aviation “greenhouse gas balance.” Several questions are addressed: Which components should be included? If an aggregate of components is adopted for the “balance,” which metric should be used? How can the large differences in timescales as well as the large intrinsic underlying ERF uncertainties be handled? We demonstrate that these choices result in very different requirements for CO2‐removal from the atmosphere and different temperature outcomes over time. The article provides policymakers with an overview of issues and choices that are important regarding which approach is most appropriate for defining and achieving a greenhouse gas balance for aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement.
{"title":"A “greenhouse gas balance” for aviation in line with the Paris Agreement","authors":"J. Fuglestvedt, M. Lund, Steffen Kallbekken, B. Samset, David S. Lee","doi":"10.1002/wcc.839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.839","url":null,"abstract":"The effects of aviation on climate pose unique policy challenges. A large fraction of the CO2 emissions (65%) is international and not (explicitly) included in the Paris Agreement. The interpretation of Article 4.1 on achieving a “balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” is ambiguous in the context of aviation because of the substantial non‐CO2 effects associated with the sector. For the achievement of the temperature goal in Article 2, both CO2 and non‐CO2 effects are important. The non‐CO2 effects contribute 66% of the sectoral total climate effect (in terms of Effective Radiative Forcing; ERF) at present, with significant uncertainties. The largest of these non‐CO2 effects, contrail‐cirrus and the net‐effect of NOx, are not caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions, representing another ambiguity as to whether they should be included in the balance concept. We discuss the role of aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement, and present illustrative calculations of a hypothetical aviation “greenhouse gas balance.” Several questions are addressed: Which components should be included? If an aggregate of components is adopted for the “balance,” which metric should be used? How can the large differences in timescales as well as the large intrinsic underlying ERF uncertainties be handled? We demonstrate that these choices result in very different requirements for CO2‐removal from the atmosphere and different temperature outcomes over time. The article provides policymakers with an overview of issues and choices that are important regarding which approach is most appropriate for defining and achieving a greenhouse gas balance for aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42090019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In order not to significantly overshoot maximum levels of warming like the 1.5 and 2°C target we must stay within a fixed emissions budget. How to fairly distribute the entitlements to emit within such a budget is perhaps the most intensely discussed question in all of climate justice. In our review we discuss the most prominent proposals in moral and political philosophy on how to solve this question and put a special emphasis on scholarly contributions from the last decade. We canvass the arguments for and against emissions egalitarianism, emissions sufficientarianism, and emissions grandfathering as well as the debates surrounding them. These are how to deal with non‐compliance, how to split emissions between producers and consumers, how to best account for terrestrial carbon sinks, and whether emissions from having children should be subtracted from parents' emissions budgets. From the viewpoint of justice, it matters not only that we act against climate change but also how we do so. This review aims to elucidate one of the major ways in which our reaction to climate change could be just or unjust.
{"title":"Distributive justice and the global emissions budget","authors":"Alexander Schulan, Lukas Tank, Christian Baatz","doi":"10.1002/wcc.847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.847","url":null,"abstract":"In order not to significantly overshoot maximum levels of warming like the 1.5 and 2°C target we must stay within a fixed emissions budget. How to fairly distribute the entitlements to emit within such a budget is perhaps the most intensely discussed question in all of climate justice. In our review we discuss the most prominent proposals in moral and political philosophy on how to solve this question and put a special emphasis on scholarly contributions from the last decade. We canvass the arguments for and against emissions egalitarianism, emissions sufficientarianism, and emissions grandfathering as well as the debates surrounding them. These are how to deal with non‐compliance, how to split emissions between producers and consumers, how to best account for terrestrial carbon sinks, and whether emissions from having children should be subtracted from parents' emissions budgets. From the viewpoint of justice, it matters not only that we act against climate change but also how we do so. This review aims to elucidate one of the major ways in which our reaction to climate change could be just or unjust.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43183639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report warns in stark terms that many long inhabited parts of the world are now on course to become uninhabitable. As astronomers continue to search the universe for new habitable planets, it is equally essential to historicize the consequences of changing habitability on this one. This article reviews how scholars have engaged with the widely noted but rarely theorized categories of “habitability” and “uninhabitability.” While tracing longer imperial genealogies, the primary focus is on notions of habitability in relation to European global empires in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and their postcolonial legacies. The article traces three key themes in the literature: that habitability was inherently limited, and beyond those limits allegedly lay uninhabitability; that habitability was differential and that certain places were habitable for some groups but not others (but that this might be changed by technological interventions); and finally, that the limits of habitability were not static, but could change for both better and worse. Here the links between colonialism and ideas of acclimatization, terraforming, “improvement,” deliberate uninhabitability, and an “Anthropocene” have all been central to the literature. These have often been closely associated with insidious forms of environmental determinism, which are taking on new forms in an age of crisis (especially in narratives around climate and migration). By drawing together previously disparate literatures, this article ultimately calls on scholars to embrace habitability studies more widely, and to expand on their interdisciplinary potential for communicating the societal consequences of a changing climate.
{"title":"Histories of habitability from the oikoumene to the Anthropocene","authors":"L. Fleetwood","doi":"10.1002/wcc.840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.840","url":null,"abstract":"The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report warns in stark terms that many long inhabited parts of the world are now on course to become uninhabitable. As astronomers continue to search the universe for new habitable planets, it is equally essential to historicize the consequences of changing habitability on this one. This article reviews how scholars have engaged with the widely noted but rarely theorized categories of “habitability” and “uninhabitability.” While tracing longer imperial genealogies, the primary focus is on notions of habitability in relation to European global empires in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and their postcolonial legacies. The article traces three key themes in the literature: that habitability was inherently limited, and beyond those limits allegedly lay uninhabitability; that habitability was differential and that certain places were habitable for some groups but not others (but that this might be changed by technological interventions); and finally, that the limits of habitability were not static, but could change for both better and worse. Here the links between colonialism and ideas of acclimatization, terraforming, “improvement,” deliberate uninhabitability, and an “Anthropocene” have all been central to the literature. These have often been closely associated with insidious forms of environmental determinism, which are taking on new forms in an age of crisis (especially in narratives around climate and migration). By drawing together previously disparate literatures, this article ultimately calls on scholars to embrace habitability studies more widely, and to expand on their interdisciplinary potential for communicating the societal consequences of a changing climate.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47363755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although developed countries have been historically responsible for causing climate change, developing countries are more vulnerable to its current and future effects and being asked to commit to levels of climate action that exceed their responsibilities and capabilities. Climate change exacerbates existing social inequities by disproportionately impacting certain groups (including women, racial minorities, and the poor) more than others. Powerful institutions such as the government and the academy have a responsibility to alter this course and advance climate justice but are themselves marred by inequities. Given these disparities, the question of how the burden of climate change mitigation should be justly distributed amongst stakeholders is of paramount importance to international and domestic climate negotiations. Insights from the social identity and group processes literatures explain how experiences of inequity along geographical and sociodemographic dimensions generate identities and groups. As group members, people are sensitive to threats to the ingroup, experience collective emotions on behalf of the group, and differentially apply morality to in‐ versus outgroups. Members are also incentivized to protect and further their group's interests relative to outgroups. Social psychology offers some promising avenues of research for potential solutions to mitigate the multilevel intergroup conflict posing as a barrier to climate justice. Climate governance recommendations to policymakers and negotiators include incentivizing integrative solutions and fully considering the justice implications of climate policy. Climate scholars are encouraged to pursue interdisciplinary collaborations, improve diversity within the academy and in research samples, and prioritize climate adaptation in developing contexts.
{"title":"Multilevel intergroup conflict at the core of climate (in)justice: Psychological challenges and ways forward","authors":"Rohini Majumdar, Elke U. Weber","doi":"10.1002/wcc.836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.836","url":null,"abstract":"Although developed countries have been historically responsible for causing climate change, developing countries are more vulnerable to its current and future effects and being asked to commit to levels of climate action that exceed their responsibilities and capabilities. Climate change exacerbates existing social inequities by disproportionately impacting certain groups (including women, racial minorities, and the poor) more than others. Powerful institutions such as the government and the academy have a responsibility to alter this course and advance climate justice but are themselves marred by inequities. Given these disparities, the question of how the burden of climate change mitigation should be justly distributed amongst stakeholders is of paramount importance to international and domestic climate negotiations. Insights from the social identity and group processes literatures explain how experiences of inequity along geographical and sociodemographic dimensions generate identities and groups. As group members, people are sensitive to threats to the ingroup, experience collective emotions on behalf of the group, and differentially apply morality to in‐ versus outgroups. Members are also incentivized to protect and further their group's interests relative to outgroups. Social psychology offers some promising avenues of research for potential solutions to mitigate the multilevel intergroup conflict posing as a barrier to climate justice. Climate governance recommendations to policymakers and negotiators include incentivizing integrative solutions and fully considering the justice implications of climate policy. Climate scholars are encouraged to pursue interdisciplinary collaborations, improve diversity within the academy and in research samples, and prioritize climate adaptation in developing contexts.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47430100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The feasibility of different options to reduce the risks of climate change has engaged scholars for decades. Yet there is no agreement on how to define and assess feasibility. We define feasible as “do‐able under realistic assumptions.” A sound feasibility assessment is based on causal reasoning; enables comparison of feasibility across climate options, contexts, and implementation levels; and reflexively considers the agency of its audience. Global climate scenarios are a good starting point for assessing the feasibility of climate options since they represent causal pathways, quantify implementation levels, and consider policy choices. Yet, scenario developers face difficulties to represent all relevant causalities, assess the realism of assumptions, assign likelihood to potential outcomes, and evaluate the agency of their users, which calls for external feasibility assessments. Existing approaches to feasibility assessment mirror the “inside” and the “outside” view coined by Kahneman and co‐authors. The inside view considers climate change as a unique challenge and seeks to identify barriers that should be overcome by political choice, commitment, and skill. The outside view assesses feasibility through examining historical analogies (reference cases) to the given climate option. Recent studies seek to bridge the inside and the outside views through “feasibility spaces,” by identifying reference cases for a climate option, measuring their outcomes and relevant characteristics, and mapping them together with the expected outcomes and characteristics of the climate option. Feasibility spaces are a promising method to prioritize climate options, realistically assess the achievability of climate goals, and construct scenarios with empirically‐grounded assumptions.
{"title":"The feasibility of climate action: Bridging the inside and the outside view through feasibility spaces","authors":"J. Jewell, A. Cherp","doi":"10.1002/wcc.838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.838","url":null,"abstract":"The feasibility of different options to reduce the risks of climate change has engaged scholars for decades. Yet there is no agreement on how to define and assess feasibility. We define feasible as “do‐able under realistic assumptions.” A sound feasibility assessment is based on causal reasoning; enables comparison of feasibility across climate options, contexts, and implementation levels; and reflexively considers the agency of its audience. Global climate scenarios are a good starting point for assessing the feasibility of climate options since they represent causal pathways, quantify implementation levels, and consider policy choices. Yet, scenario developers face difficulties to represent all relevant causalities, assess the realism of assumptions, assign likelihood to potential outcomes, and evaluate the agency of their users, which calls for external feasibility assessments. Existing approaches to feasibility assessment mirror the “inside” and the “outside” view coined by Kahneman and co‐authors. The inside view considers climate change as a unique challenge and seeks to identify barriers that should be overcome by political choice, commitment, and skill. The outside view assesses feasibility through examining historical analogies (reference cases) to the given climate option. Recent studies seek to bridge the inside and the outside views through “feasibility spaces,” by identifying reference cases for a climate option, measuring their outcomes and relevant characteristics, and mapping them together with the expected outcomes and characteristics of the climate option. Feasibility spaces are a promising method to prioritize climate options, realistically assess the achievability of climate goals, and construct scenarios with empirically‐grounded assumptions.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47949236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non‐use agreement by Biermann et al. (DOI: 10.1002/wcc.754)","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/wcc.835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.835","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49122849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The current study reviews key social psychological mechanisms related to conflict and conflict resolution that manifest within both the coronavirus pandemic and climate change crises. The uncertainty, scale, and nature of both global crises generate various forms of individual‐ and group‐level conflicts that, mediated by psychological and cultural phenomena, impede beneficial action and sustainable adaptation. Specifically, we highlight five social psychological mechanisms (i.e., cognitive dissonance, responsibility diffusion, compassion fatigue, dehumanization, and competitive beliefs) known to interact with, produce, and amplify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and/or intergroup conflicts. We draw attention to how these mechanisms have been activated by the pandemic in ways that share important similarities with climate change and present evidence‐informed approaches to combating their contribution to conflict (i.e., motivating behavior change, implementing accountability mechanisms, creating collective action opportunities, fostering intergroup contact, and promoting perspective‐taking). By engaging social psychological research to better understand both the roots of conflict as well as outline potential individual, community, and societal responses that can help alleviate conflict during these global crises, we can increase our ability to successfully navigate and in some cases avoid future conflicts caused by climate change.
{"title":"COVID‐19 and climate change: The social‐psychological roots of conflict and conflict interventions during global crises","authors":"B. Burrows, C. Abellera, E. Markowitz","doi":"10.1002/wcc.837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.837","url":null,"abstract":"The current study reviews key social psychological mechanisms related to conflict and conflict resolution that manifest within both the coronavirus pandemic and climate change crises. The uncertainty, scale, and nature of both global crises generate various forms of individual‐ and group‐level conflicts that, mediated by psychological and cultural phenomena, impede beneficial action and sustainable adaptation. Specifically, we highlight five social psychological mechanisms (i.e., cognitive dissonance, responsibility diffusion, compassion fatigue, dehumanization, and competitive beliefs) known to interact with, produce, and amplify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and/or intergroup conflicts. We draw attention to how these mechanisms have been activated by the pandemic in ways that share important similarities with climate change and present evidence‐informed approaches to combating their contribution to conflict (i.e., motivating behavior change, implementing accountability mechanisms, creating collective action opportunities, fostering intergroup contact, and promoting perspective‐taking). By engaging social psychological research to better understand both the roots of conflict as well as outline potential individual, community, and societal responses that can help alleviate conflict during these global crises, we can increase our ability to successfully navigate and in some cases avoid future conflicts caused by climate change.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48084647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This focus review summarizes climate politics in Taiwan at the global, the national, and the local level. The article begins with an introduction to Taiwan's emission profile, major actors, and recent policy development. At the global level, Taiwan's unique international status has limited its responses to climate change as mostly gesture policies, but recently corporate climate actions bloomed due to pressures from the supply chains. At the national level, Taiwan's developmental state legacy has locked the country in a “high‐carbon regime” and struggled with the debate on nuclear power. Finally, at the local level, Taiwan seeks to facilitate climate actions with the principle of energy democracy, yet public participation still falls short and local land use conflicts will present enormous challenges. The article ends with a discussion on current knowledge gaps and invites future research to put Taiwan into comparative perspectives.
{"title":"Politics of climate change mitigation in Taiwan: International isolation, developmentalism legacy, and civil society responses","authors":"J. C. Liu, Chia‐Wei Chao","doi":"10.1002/wcc.834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.834","url":null,"abstract":"This focus review summarizes climate politics in Taiwan at the global, the national, and the local level. The article begins with an introduction to Taiwan's emission profile, major actors, and recent policy development. At the global level, Taiwan's unique international status has limited its responses to climate change as mostly gesture policies, but recently corporate climate actions bloomed due to pressures from the supply chains. At the national level, Taiwan's developmental state legacy has locked the country in a “high‐carbon regime” and struggled with the debate on nuclear power. Finally, at the local level, Taiwan seeks to facilitate climate actions with the principle of energy democracy, yet public participation still falls short and local land use conflicts will present enormous challenges. The article ends with a discussion on current knowledge gaps and invites future research to put Taiwan into comparative perspectives.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44816504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：